|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Pauws99
4151
« on: September 23, 2015, 11:18 »
Apart from being taken to the cleaners by the Stock Exchange regulators who would no doubt consider this fraud. They could easily bump up their figures by accepting MY crap.
4152
« on: September 23, 2015, 10:18 »
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.
I can't decide whether he's making a point or just gone insane surely he can't be generating any significant income....can he. If he does then I guess we've all got it wrong!
4153
« on: September 23, 2015, 09:59 »
The reviews are baffling.
I guess the next couple of months will see if this will lead to FT, 123 and IS closing the gap on SS in terms of DLs.
For me they already are and have been for a few months now
4154
« on: September 23, 2015, 05:05 »
Decided to give them another try and uploaded a handful of images earlier this month, after a long break. Fine images, which sell regularly. Quite a few of them were rejected: "They were not what they are looking for". Guess that should be the other way around - I've ceased uploading again, they're not what I'm looking for. A pity.
No wonder they aren't getting many sales if they are rejecting good sellers - sounds like they are pursuing the Crestock arrogance philosophy
4155
« on: September 23, 2015, 03:59 »
It goes up and down quite easy to upload so I'd stick with it.
4156
« on: September 22, 2015, 00:34 »
Still waiting for a sale after n years stopped uploading like others when they started rejecting and even suspended me for my poor quality submissions! 
4157
« on: September 21, 2015, 10:08 »
When I first signed up to 123 was very frustrated that my "earnings" in "your balance" was stubbornly stuck at zero. Then I looked somewhere else and discovered I was doing quite nicely. Think RF is probably the worst designed and certainly buggiest interface but I don't think there's any dishonesty there.
4158
« on: September 21, 2015, 03:10 »
Sounds a very good result to me. I am finding a decline in shutterstock with almost no SODS of late which is making my income worryingly flat at the moment - most other sites continue to improve (at varying rates).
4159
« on: September 20, 2015, 14:48 »
Manipulate is an interesting term - no search algorithm is neutral. I think also "best" is a misleading term. I suspect buyers want images that are fit for purpose easy to find and inexpensive they don't need or want the best ever picture of a particular subject. In fact sometimes I think a stunning pic may distract from their purpose.
So if someone else picture sells rather than yours because the search algorithm changes then you have to live with it don't you?
4160
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:25 »
Interesting post Sue. Yes the balance of male vs females nudes is sexist but I think its not really to do with the site but mainly a reflection of the world we live it - the fact is pictures of pretty/sexy women sell things. From Bounty Bars, Cadbury's Flake Manikin Cigars (Those from the UK who are old enough will remember). It also sells newspapers - it amuses me every year that it seems 95% of people completing exams are attractive females! I think it also reflects the fact that most photographers are Male. I have done pictures of models in the past and confess I'm more comfortable with and enjoy taking pictures of females. I gave it up as being uneconomic. I did do a few topless/nude as a small part of any shoot and they have sold but not particularly well. I must confess I never really gave much thought as to what they were used for.
At the end of the day its down to any site what they choose to accept and we have to live with it.
4161
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:12 »
The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one 
4162
« on: September 17, 2015, 11:17 »
Wonder if it heralds a change in policy re topless models?
4163
« on: September 17, 2015, 11:05 »
I would start submitting straight away so you can judge whats needed/sells - it might be frustrating if you get thousands rejected! You are right to even make a small profit you have to minimise costs!
4164
« on: September 17, 2015, 05:38 »
Yep im in a similar situation......however they also seem to be accepting more pics than ever I can only conclude they just don't like the stuff I do. I expect their site will get blander and more stocky despite them occasionally saying customers are looking for something "different" then stamping all over anything that doesn't meet their mysterious standards.
4165
« on: September 16, 2015, 14:44 »
Once there up for sale the only real critics worth worrying about are the buyers  . Let what sells guide you
4166
« on: September 16, 2015, 13:26 »
Always been a good no 2 for me - just wish they could sort out their ridiculous categories.
4167
« on: September 16, 2015, 05:28 »
and the photo you linked to wouldn't be accepted today. Noise, lighting, probably composition would get it rejected,
Of course it would - its a 100 years old. Does it make it a bad photograph no. Does it make it a bad phtotograph to sell as stock - yes. There's a big difference.
4168
« on: September 15, 2015, 17:00 »
I'm not even getting SODs horrible run for me at the moment
4169
« on: September 11, 2015, 02:21 »
I suspect as is often the case while some of us are doing badly others are having a good run. However for me personally SS seems much more inconsistent of late. I think they are being complacent about Adobe/Fotolia.
4170
« on: September 11, 2015, 01:20 »
67 now.....I Stock, Fotolia and RF123 are all currently selling better than ss for me.....strange times! It doesn't help that I get close to zero accepted on SS these days!
4171
« on: September 09, 2015, 16:30 »
Thanks.....so long as the run doesn't end with a run of nothing......
4172
« on: September 09, 2015, 14:02 »
Currently "enjoying" a run of 54 subs sales with nothing higher. Is it just me having a poor run?
4173
« on: September 09, 2015, 06:56 »
Yep I had an EL not long after I signed up $29 - nothing close from there since.......
4174
« on: September 09, 2015, 04:17 »
interesting can stock was top - it was for me too when i started - wonder if they push new/small portfolios.
4175
« on: August 20, 2015, 01:33 »
These days i just swallow SS rejections and move on - otherwise I'd drive myself crazy.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
